United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why
-
@xaade said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@ben_lubar said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@xaade said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@ben_lubar said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Is there video footage or a third party witness
It was in a video of him walking to the back of the plane post-injury.
So your argument is that injuring someone is okay if they can still walk afterwards? I'm confused.
You asked if there was evidence that he reboarded after being removed, and there is.
Going back to the original assertion. It doesn't not justify the removal. However, it was no longer a civil issue when he reboarded. At that point he was trespassing in an area where trespassing is very much criminal.
Hah, but was he really off-boarded?
-
@kt_ should have water boarded him.
-
@xaade said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
We don't know if that would have worked, because it didn't happen. $1350 isn't far off from $800.
They didn't need to stop at the 1350 required by law. I am sure its better than kicking someone out.
-
There are cases where it is entirely reasonable to take people off the plane despite them having boarded. I've had one happen to me: the copilot was taken seriously ill just during the final checks before closing the aircraft door for pushback. Instead of taking off, the copilot was taken off in a wheelchair and then (after a bit of true confusion) the crew apologised and everyone had to get off again because that plane wasn't going to fly (we weren't at the airline's hub so a replacement crew was hours away). I ended up (because of the situation with connections) flying the following day with an entirely different airline (BA instead of KLM, via LHR instead of AMS). It was irritating, of course, but the agents in the airport dealt fairly with everyone.
The other case where it is clear that people can reasonably be kicked off despite having boarded is where they're sufficiently intoxicated and rowdy to cause a hazard. It's for this sort of thing that the airlines claim a right to kick people off, but it is the sort of thing that can be subject to review by courts. The test there would be whether the action taken (preventing people from getting the service for which they have paid) was reasonable and proportionate, given the circumstances. The shocking thing about the UA incident is that it does not appear to have met that basic legal test. Management being a bunch of chuckleheads who can't plan for shit isn't a reason for it being acceptable to treat customers poorly.
Fortunately, the proportion of no-shows seems to be lower among customers of European airlines (no, I've no idea why there's this difference, but I've seen it noted in multiple places), making the use of standby tickets less common, and the process of planning how to move staff around simpler.
-
@xaade said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
part of the reason there were no takers is that it's a voucher for another flight, from what I read. A lot of people are flying one time, or rarely fly, making the voucher useless.
For volunteers... yes. It's worth pointing out, though, that when they involuntarily bump someone they're required by law to offer the compensation in the form of a check or a reverse charge to their card (if a card was used to purchase the ticket), at the customer's option.
-
@xaade said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
And part of the reason there were no takers is that it's a voucher for another flight, from what I read. A lot of people are flying one time, or rarely fly, making the voucher useless.
They weren't offering real money?
-
@dkf said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
The shocking thing about the UA incident is that it does not appear to have met that basic legal test. Management being a bunch of chuckleheads who can't plan for shit isn't a reason for it being acceptable to treat customers poorly.
I believe that it does meet that test due to the crew they needed to get on being "must-flys". The passengers were not.
Yes, UA fucked up. But, if they had planned properly 4 people would have been fucked before they even got on the plane. That they made it on the plane is inconsequential in my eyes, except for that it is a crappy thing to do. But, not illegal.
-
@antiquarian said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@xaade said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
And part of the reason there were no takers is that it's a voucher for another flight, from what I read. A lot of people are flying one time, or rarely fly, making the voucher useless.
They weren't offering real money?
Volunteers are typically offered vouchers good for future travel. It's only when they involuntarily bump someone that they have to offer them "real money". (They can offer vouchers, but they're legally obligated to inform the customer that they have the option of real money.)
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
But, not illegal.
Irrelevant, they'll lose customers for it with good reason.
-
@wharrgarbl said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
But, not illegal.
Irrelevant, they'll lose customers for it with good reason.
They will lose customers, but they will lose them because idiots think that UA goons drug the doctor off the plane, and that did not happen.
-
@Polygeekery Doesn't matter, they're responsible.
-
@wharrgarbl said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery Doesn't matter, they're responsible.
Is the doctor not responsible for this at all?
-
@wharrgarbl said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery Doesn't matter, they're responsible.
They're responsible for the need to bump some people from the flight. They're not responsible for how that happened.
Not that it matters as it's their flight so they're the "face" of the situation so they'll be seen by the general public as responsible.Most people won't care because they just want cheap flights. And even those that do will forget about it and move on.
-
@loopback0 They are responsible for failing to solve it in a friendly way, and that's all that I care in this event.
-
@wharrgarbl said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@loopback0 They are responsible for failing to solve it in a friendly way, and that's all that I care in this event.
They tried to remedy it in a friendly way. They asked for volunteers and offered to compensate them for the inconvenience.
-
@wharrgarbl said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@loopback0 They are responsible for failing to solve it in a friendly way, and that's all that I care in this event.
You can't solve everything in a friendly way. Not after leaving Kindergarten, anyway.
-
@loopback0 said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@wharrgarbl said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@loopback0 They are responsible for failing to solve it in a friendly way, and that's all that I care in this event.
You can't solve everything in a friendly way. Not after leaving Kindergarten, anyway.
You've not been around a kindergartener recently. They are sociopaths.
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
They tried to remedy it in a friendly way.
That was a very half-assed try if their offer was so low that not a single passenger took it. We'll just have to agree to disagree here, I don't think they tried enough.
-
@wharrgarbl said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
They tried to remedy it in a friendly way.
That was a very half-assed try if their offer was so low that not a single passenger took it. We'll just have to agree to disagree here, I don't think they tried enough.
They offered two years salary in your country.
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
They offered two years salary in your country.
And only three passengers wanted to work there? :O
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@wharrgarbl said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
But, not illegal.
Irrelevant, they'll lose customers for it with good reason.
They will lose customers, but they will lose them because idiots think that UA goons drug the doctor off the plane, and that did not happen.
They will lose customers because someone filmed their customer care. They should ban filming and throw whoever reported the incident in jail. WONT_FIX UAL_CUSTOMERCARE_WORKED_AS_DESIGNED
-
-
Yeah, yeah, everything is racist is , but..
The problem with expunging the passenger’s race from the discussion is that it plays into this myth of the raceless minority. It presumes that there is little potential for an Asian man to be treated worse on a United flight because of his race than a white man. It suggests that Asians in America have more in common with white people than non-white people.
Now...right before that was this, of course:
And this particular incident is complicated by the fact that the cops appear to be African-American.
h/t was this Andrew Sullivan column where he dumps on Hillary and Trump first, but eventually comes up with this gem of a paragraph about this nonsense:
Do you know the real reason Dr. Dao was so brutally tackled and thrown off that United flight? It was all about white supremacy. I mean, what isn’t these days? That idea is from the New Republic. Yes, the cops “seemed” to be African-American, as the author concedes, so the white-versus-minority paradigm is a little off. Yes, this has happened before to many people with no discernible racial or gender pattern. Yes, there is an obvious alternative explanation: The seats from which passengers were forcibly removed were randomly assigned. New York published a similar piece, which argued that the incident was just another example of Trump’s border-and-immigration-enforcement policies toward suspected illegal immigrants of color. That no federal cops were involved and there is no actual evidence at all of police harassment of Asian-Americans is irrelevant — it’s all racism, all the time, everywhere in everything.
-
@wharrgarbl said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
They tried to remedy it in a friendly way.
That was a very half-assed try if their offer was so low that not a single passenger took it. We'll just have to agree to disagree here, I don't think they tried enough.
You don't know that. Most attempts involve offers of putting you on the next flight plus a voucher for a given amount. If there weren't any frequent fliers, the voucher would have been useless. Maybe they were all idiots travelling on too tight of a schedule and couldn't afford to adjust their itinerary. Maybe no one was really listening because they were frustrated by the flight already being late. All sorts of things that could explain no one volunteering.
-
@coldandtired said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
They did it correctly. Obey the commands of the flight crew, and figure out later that (or if) the airline fucked things up royally, failed to deliver on its legal obligations, and now owes them big time.
-
@anotherusername said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@coldandtired said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
They did it correctly. Obey the commands of the flight crew, and figure out later that (or if) the airline fucked things up royally, failed to deliver on its legal obligations, and now owes them big time.
Maybe. None of them are getting 15 minutes of fame for acting like a petulant child.
-
@abarker said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
You don't know that. Most attempts involve offers of putting you on the next flight plus a voucher for a given amount.
You just contradicted yourself. I don't consider their effort good enough and neither did their passengers.
-
@wharrgarbl said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
You just contradicted yourself.
No I didn't.
@wharrgarbl said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
I don't consider their effort good enough and neither did their passengers.
And there is no way of knowing what the passengers would have considered good enough. United has no obligation to keep offering different compensations until people volunteer to be bumped, because such an approach would be time consuming and not guarantee to work. They made a good faith effort and then switched to selecting people to involuntarily bump, as permited by aviation regulations. Whether you think the offered compensation was "good enough" is irrelevant. Whether you think they made enough tries is also irrelevant.
-
@abarker said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Whether you think the offered compensation was "good enough" is irrelevant. Whether you think they made enough tries is also irrelevant.
It is relevant for me, it's relevant for their PR, and it's relevant for all consumers that think like me.
-
@wharrgarbl said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
it's relevant for all consumers that think like me.
Luckily very few of our consumers do. We are capitalist pigs, not communist pansies.
-
@abarker said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Maybe they were all idiots travelling on too tight of a schedule
Why are they idiots? How many days in advance must one travel because of questionable policies?
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@dangeRuss said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
And the fun just keeps coming:
@abarker already posted that. But go ahead and blame the UA CEO for this if it makes you feel good.
What's up with you whiteknighting for the CEO? You got a crush on the guy?
He gets the flak for shitty planning that resulted in UA having to shove employees on the plane RIGHT NOW GODDAMMIT, because it's 2017 ,and we have state of the art resource allocation systems designed to prevent this kind of situation in the first place.
-
@Maciejasjmj said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
and we have state of the art resource allocation systems designed to prevent this kind of situation in the first place.
Defeated regularly by weather, mechanical problems, people getting sick, and the Oxford comma (that bastard).
-
@boomzilla said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Maciejasjmj said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
and we have state of the art resource allocation systems designed to prevent this kind of situation in the first place.
Defeated regularly by weather, mechanical problems, people getting sick, and the Oxford comma (that bastard).
It's not a bloody mom and pop shop that can be put out of business by two rainy days in a row. If they have no plan B that doesn't involve rush mode, it's on them.
-
@Maciejasjmj said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
It's not a bloody mom and pop shop that can be put out of business by two rainy days in a row. If they have no plan B that doesn't involve rush mode, it's on them.
Welcome to the real world! Airline scheduling is pretty much (and has been) the cutting edge of operations research due to the complexity of everything going on. Sure, they could make the system super resistant to this sort of thing, but that's going to cost a ton of money for situations where, say, bad weather at a major hub takes down a bunch of flights.
Shit happens. I can understand your reaction, but...
Michael Jackson - That's Ignorant – 00:04
— CAJim2
-
...and they did it again. At least there was no blood or broken bones involved this time, but still... wow.
http://www.wtsp.com/news/bride-groom-kicked-off-united-flight/431659972
The flight wasn't anywhere near close to full. They found some guy stretched out and sleeping across three seats: his own and their two. So they sat a few rows up, rather than waking the guy. When a flight attendant asked them why they weren't in their assigned seats, they explained, but moved back to their assigned seats as requested.
The crew sicced an Air Marshal on them anyway, and made up a bunch of accusations about them being disruptive and "repeatedly refusing" to take their seats, and the marshal kicked them off. On their way to their wedding. So not only does United break guitars and faces, but apparently hearts as well.
BRB. Shorting United...
-
@masonwheeler said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
The crew sicced an Air Marshal on them anyway,
Of course you "forgot" to quote this part:
United Airlines claims they actually tried to sit in an upgraded seat "repeatedly" and they "wouldn't follow crew instructions."
Hrm...
After sitting, Holh said a flight attendant approached and asked if they were in their ticketed seats. The couple explained they weren't and asked if they could get an upgrade, but instead were told they needed to return to their assigned seats.
Which actually makes the bit about sitting in 1st (or maybe int'l business or even just economy plus) class make sense, because why would flight attendants care or notice them sitting in regular economy seats?
-
@abarker said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
And there is no way of knowing what the passengers would have considered good enough.
I'm pretty sure that $800 in actual money plus a free hotel stay would have been good enough for someone.
-
@boomzilla said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Of course you "forgot" to quote this part:
Umm... did you read what I wrote immediately after the part you quoted?
The crew ... made up a bunch of accusations about them being disruptive and "repeatedly refusing" to take their seats
I'm strongly inclined to believe the passengers' version of events over United's, for three reasons.
- The accused are innocent until proven guilty.
- In the light of recent events, United's credibility is rapidly approaching nil.
- I've actually done this (moved to a seat with better conditions on a long, half-empty flight) and it was no big deal for anyone. If the airline decides to make a big deal of it, they're the ones with the problem.
-
@masonwheeler said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Umm... did you read what I wrote immediately after the part you quoted?
"Made up accusations." Total bullshit.
-
@boomzilla Yes, that's most likely exactly what they were.
-
@masonwheeler said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
...and they did it again. At least there was no blood or broken bones involved this time, but still... wow.
http://www.wtsp.com/news/bride-groom-kicked-off-united-flight/431659972
The flight wasn't anywhere near close to full. They found some guy stretched out and sleeping across three seats: his own and their two. So they sat a few rows up, rather than waking the guy. When a flight attendant asked them why they weren't in their assigned seats, they explained, but moved back to their assigned seats as requested.
The crew sicced an Air Marshal on them anyway, and made up a bunch of accusations about them being disruptive and "repeatedly refusing" to take their seats, and the marshal kicked them off. On their way to their wedding. So not only does United break guitars and faces, but apparently hearts as well.
BRB. Shorting United...
Orrrrrr, bride and groom were total asshats and instead of accepting responsibility they jumped on the bandwagon instead of accepting responsibility for their actions. This seems like the most likely sequence of events in this case.
-
@masonwheeler said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@boomzilla Yes, that's most likely exactly what they were.
Given what the story said, I have exactly the opposite read on the situation. Your 3 "reasons" are stupid.
The accused are innocent until proven guilty.
I'm not in a court of law. I don't think OJ was ever out looking for the real killer on the golf course. Maybe the real killer's drive.
In the light of recent events, United's credibility is rapidly approaching nil.
This is super stupid. Completely different people in a completely different situation. Oh, also, to refer to your first reason, when did United get proven guilty of anything?
I've actually done this (moved to a seat with better conditions on a long, half-empty flight) and it was no big deal for anyone. If the airline decides to make a big deal of it, they're the ones with the problem.
You're ignoring that they allegedly moved to an upgraded seat, which costs money to do. We'd need to know more about the situation. Well, I would, you've already convicted United in your head.
-
@masonwheeler said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
The accused are innocent until proven guilty.
Not in the Twitterverse. Also, why does this not apply to United? You stated you consider them to be guilty until proven innocent.
-
@masonwheeler said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
I've actually done this (moved to a seat with better conditions on a long, half-empty flight) and it was no big deal for anyone. If the airline decides to make a big deal of it, they're the ones with the problem.
So if you steal something from an airline, and the airline says something about it, it is the airline's fault??
-
@Maciejasjmj said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@dangeRuss said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
And the fun just keeps coming:
@abarker already posted that. But go ahead and blame the UA CEO for this if it makes you feel good.
What's up with you whiteknighting for the CEO? You got a crush on the guy?
He gets the flak for shitty planning that resulted in UA having to shove employees on the plane RIGHT NOW GODDAMMIT, because it's 2017 ,and we have state of the art resource allocation systems designed to prevent this kind of situation in the first place.
Yes, we do have start of the art resource allocation systems. In this case they were trying to use it (their airplane to ferry crew).
But yeah, let's just have triply redundant crew and planes on standby at each airport in the US and see how much people like purchasing $1M fare tickets.
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Not in the Twitterverse.
I wouldn't know. I'm not a Twit.
Also, why does this not apply to United? You stated you consider them to be guilty until proven innocent.
Because there's plenty of proof out there. (Video evidence, the contract of carriage that they violated, etc.) The facts of the matter in the doctor's case are really not in doubt at this point.
In this case, it's a he-said-she-said situation, and so the passengers should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
So if you steal something from an airline, and the airline says something about it, it is the airline's fault??
Who said anything about stealing? What has the airline lost?
-
@masonwheeler said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
In this case, it's a he-said-she-said situation, and so the passengers should be considered innocent until proven guilty
But United should not?
Carry on John Nestor.
-
@masonwheeler said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
So if you steal something from an airline, and the airline says something about it, it is the airline's fault??
Who said anything about stealing? What has the airline lost?
The money you should have paid for that ticket.